Tobold's Blog
Saturday, October 25, 2014
 
Slopebrowed weaseldicks

I am not a native English speaker. And apart from the time spent on the internet or watching TV in English, I don't live in an English-speaking environment. Thus my vocabulary might not always be very current, especially regarding colloquial language. So I was quite happy to much expand my vocabulary by reading this very well written post by Chris Kluwe. I didn't even know words like "slopebrowed weaseldicks" existed. Recommended!

Comments:
Heck, I'm born and raised in the US and depressingly monolingual in English and *I* didn't know "slopebrowed weaseldicks" existed.
 
One has to admire a good rant.

It helps that I agree with it.
 
Yes definitely a rant. I live in "an English speaking environment" and I have no idea what some of those terms mean.

I also love the bit at the end:

"The original text said Kevin Spacey was a U.S. Senator, rather than a Representative, in the TV show House of Cards."

.... the problem is that the TV show "House of Cards"(1990) was originally a show about the British Parliament and was followed by the series "To play the King" it is in the US adaption (2013) that Kevin Spacey plays a U.S. Senator.

US cultural imperialism again.
 
Chris' rant came out at the same time as Felicia Day's post.

Who did they go after? The person who talked trash at them, or the person who tried to be nice to them?

Felicia, naturally.

 
Oh and for the record Anita Sarkeesian has come out on Twitter and blamed the Seattle shootings on misogyny. This within 24 hours of the shooting of five students by a fellow student at Marysville-Pilchuck High School. When there was heated criticism of those tweets she blamed that on misogyny too.
 
As that sounded somewhat unlikely, I did some fact checking. Turned out milliebii didn't say the truth. The word "mysogyny" isn't mentioned in a single Anita Sarkeesian tweet from today. She did however mention "toxic masculinity" and the fact that mass shootings are nearly always committed by men. While I would say that this very feminist point of view isn't really helpful in this situation, I'm afraid she has the facts on her side: According to the FBI, 90.3 percent of murderers are men.
 
"...spitfrothed themselves into national attention..."

Do I smell a Pulitzer? Cuz I think I smell a Pulitzer.
 
I think some of those words didn't exist until the article was written.

But they should have done.
 
Now that's an excellent rant! Always good to learn new phrases: "slackjawed pickletits" :-) Thanks for sharing.
 
OK fair cop on Twitter she consistently said "Toxic ideas of Masculinity" but what she said on the TV Program "Democracy Now!" was "misogynist school massacres" and what does "toxic ideas of manhood" mean when coupled with her saying "I'm sorta shaking with fear and rage." She is clearly saying that "toxic ideas of Masculinity" lead to violent attacks on women, is she is not saying "MISOGYNY" what is she saying?
 
Toxic ideas of masculinity hurt men as well as women.

Want to show emotion? Can't, man up.
Want to be sensitive to other people's feelings? You're such a women, only women are sensitive. Men are tough!
Want to have a hobby like knitting? Only women knit. Knitting is feminine/gay.
Feeling depressed? You sissy, get over it,

Men are *just as hurt* by the idea of masculinity as women are. And so because we're expected to just "man up", many men don't get help that they so desperately need, especially when it comes to psychiatric care.

And that's the feminist viewpoint, all because qualities that are labelled "feminine" are perceived to be lesser when exhibited by men.
 
As talarian mentioned, she blames the masculinity culture for those disturbed individuals who instead of getting psychiatric help because doing it would be "sissy" or "weak", decide to take out their frustrations with shootings.

Of course though she blames masculinity for such situations, obviously opinions will differ because there is no way to prove if that would have helped. Just as Republicans blame the poor economy on not enough austerity and Democrats blame it on not enough support, both sides can never implement either sides full plan to prove the point.
 
Can't judge the English epithets - maybe it's a good article if you want to learn them.

If you want to learn about facts, it's stupid, childish, and false.
 
@Gerry

Could you point out what is false about it?
 
Chris' rant came out at the same time as Felicia Day's post. Who did they go after? The person who talked trash at them, or the person who tried to be nice to them? Felicia, naturally.

What I noticed is that on this blog in a post linking to Chris, I get a lot of attacks on Anita, who isn't involved at all in Chris's excellent rant.

If you want to learn about facts, it's stupid, childish, and false.

First of all, a rant isn't about facts. It is by definition the ultimate opinion piece. Second, Chris' post is excellent because it strongly resonates with the large majority of gamers who didn't join the slopebrowed weaseldick movement.

And third, calling something stupid, childish, and false, doesn't make it so. You know what fact Chris got wrong? He got Kevin Spacey's job in House of Cards wrong. You are free to disagree with Chris' opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions any less worth reading.

I would say that calling a post "stupid, childish, and false" without being able to give concrete examples of where that post is factually wrong in its core message is stupid, childish, and false.
 
milliebii, I think it's a little unfair to call the House of Cards reference "US cultural imperialism". The US remake, with Kevin Spacey and a U.S. Representative, was specifically referenced because Spacey's character "relaxes by playing first-person shooters".

I don't recall Francis Urquhart picking up the PlayStation controller to frag anyone in the original British series.
 
I didn't give examples because anyone who cared to find out the facts could trivially find them. Let's start - and finish - with his first paragraph:

' "Gamergate, for those unaware, is what happened a bit over a month ago, where an angry neckbeard posted demonstrably false allegations about his ex-girlfriend, claiming she slept with video game site reviewers for better scores for her games (again, demonstrably false), and then a whole bunch of other angry neckbeards on the Internet went full Denis Dyack and spitfrothed themselves into national attention by making an array of threats on numerous female game developers, including ones about their death, tried to hide behind a shield of “it’s about journalistic ethics because they said gamers are dead,” '

1. "thezoepost" did not make the claim that Zoe Quinn slept with reviewers for better scores. In fact I think the ex-boyfriend said he didn't believe that. His post related to sexual misconduct which - in his mind at least - amounted to abuse. (Had the genders been reversed, I suspect many of the sites would have posted uncritical opprobrium addressed at the Zoe Quinn figure.)

Anyway, this bit of scandal would probably have died off, had Ms. Quinn not made a ton of enemies in the past. Things started to blow up. Quinn may have got some online abuse, not for the first time. At this point, basically all of the games news and blog sites shut down all discussion on the matter, and - coincidentally or otherwise - posted a spate of offensive "gamers are dead" articles. Not surprisingly, the attempted suppression caused an explosion by way of the "Streisand Effect", with the rage focused on journalists. It was at this time that Adam Baldwin coined the tag "Gamergate" referring to a well-known historical incident in which the cover-up became the scandal. It caught on.

A mailing list (consciously modelled on 'Journolist') in which game journalists discussed strategy for suppressing the scandal - one even referred to Zoe Quinn as a "colleague" - added fuel to the fire when it was leaked.

As for "death threats to numerous female game developers", I'm not sure who he means, or why he associates them with 'Gamergate'. The only one I've heard of is Brianna Wu, who supposedly got death threats (from unknown sources) in response to her own internet trolling attempts.

Anita Sarkeesian (not a developer) has also received death threats, but they go back a long time prior to recent incidents, and I don't know why they would be associated with the 'Gamergate' movement, except to smear it.

Anyway, like I say, it's pretty much straight-up lies. Gamergate's most notable success so far has been getting Intel to pull advertising from Gamasutra based on one of the offensive "gamers are dead" articles. If it was about sending death threats to women, why would they bother doing that?
 
they go back a long time prior to recent incidents

Huh? You wouldn't consider the phrase "If you do not cancel her talk, a Montreal Massacre style attack will be carried out against the attendees, as well as students and staff at the nearby Women's Center. I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs." from October 14 to be a death threat?

And you probably are one of the "Gamergate Truthers" who believe that the death threats on Zoe Quinn were written by herself. She probably slept with the FBI investigating the case, do you think?

At this point, basically all of the games news and blog sites shut down all discussion on the matter

Nobody shut down any discussion. They just refused out of human decency (if you are a gater you might need to look up that term) to not report slanderous talk about a young woman's sex life, because such talk does not belong on games news. Would you want IGN to post a rant from your disgruntled ex-girlfriend?
 
My advice again Tobold: just delete+ban guys like Gerry Quinn. There is absolutely nothing positive gainable by discussing with trolls like him.

But then again, this is your blog at which you can discuss with whomever you want. Just delete this post as well, as it too does nothing for the conversation.
 
I'm an optimist and believe that some people can be shown the error of their ways. The whole Gamergate movement is one gigantic brainwashing operation, and maybe it helps to add a neutral voice of reason.

Worst case scenario: I get doxxed. Which isn't much of a risk, as the more deranged members of the movement probably can't even find Belgium on a map.
 
You see the problem. I've posted for a long time on this blog, and I don't think my views are all that eccentric. I also tend to check facts. Bryksom (a name I don't recall seeing before here) pops up and, without refuting anything I've said, wants me banned. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is considered crimethink.

To address Tobold's points:

1. Sarkeesian has been receiving threats for a long time before this blew up. I think it was recently stated that she received a bomb threat back in March. Where's the evidence that the recent threats are anything to do with 'Gamergate'. From what is reported, the FBI seem to think they were part of a pre-existing pattern.

2. Zoe Quinn is hardly the most reliable source, but I did not dispute that she received online abuse. She is at best a highly abrasive personality who has made many enemies. I haven't followed the details closely - if you say it involved death threats I'll take your word for it. It happened before 'Gamergate' was even a thing.

3. The same sites have had no compunction about posting articles (as distinct from simply allowing comment) when sexual allegations were made about men in the industry. But that's by the way. Gossip about Zoe Quinn in 4chan would have remained there, if it wasn't the spark that ignited a fire. While she has done her best to keep herself at the centre of things, she really isn't all that relevant to anything. It's more of a culture war now.

Anyway, if I'm "brainwashed" or a "truther" please point out any errors of fact in my post. You too, "bryksom", if you like. I'm happy to be corrected.
 
Where's the evidence that the recent threats are anything to do with 'Gamergate'.

The evidence is here. Over 35,000 #Gamergate tweets directed against Anita makes it statistically unlikely that the death threats were unrelated. Demanding that the person sending the death threats puts his name and #Gamergate hashtag on it before anybody sees the connection is asking a bit too much!

You might also want to read the message from the NYU Game Center for this excellent quote: "And no, it isn’t possible to point to harassment on both sides or to claim that the harassment is the work of a few isolated trolls. It doesn’t matter what percentage of the people who use the tag are decent folks who wouldn’t hurt a fly. The process by which words and phrases acquire meaning is complex and beyond our control, and the fact is that GamerGate has come to mean something abhorrent."
 
You forgot to mention that 95% of the 35000 tweets referred to were neutral or positive. So why would the death threats be related, especially when they were *already being made*, long before this?

"The process by which words and phrases acquire meaning is complex and beyond our control"

Translation: "People with whom we are ideologically aligned have pushed this perception, and we are happy to help reinforce it. Facts don't matter, only perception and propaganda." And this from a university, whom one might imagine would be concerned with truth and stuff. A handful of trolls stirring up trouble? Never mind. Admitted harassment on both sides? Doesn't matter. This is about propaganda, not facts.

Changing the hashtag would only weaken it, and the exact same attacks would be made on any successor anyway. After all, most of the stuff you are associating Gamergate with happened before the tag was even invented! I think the Gamergaters are too smart to fall for that one.

 
The 95% are those where a computer algorithm couldn't detect specific negative words. If you go to Twitter and do a search for the #Gamergate tag it is quite easy to say that they aren't that "neutral".

Are you denying that there is an angry mob on Twitter using the #Gamergate hashtag, with most of the anger directed at a handful of women in gaming?
 
Just going by the data on your link: "Brandwatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. And tweets directed at [men] were, on average, more negative than those directed at [women]." Surely we should assume that Brandwatch are capable of doing their job?

As for the users of the #Gamergate hashtag (if they are those to whom you refer as an angry mob) - yes, it's clear from the figures that the number of #Gamergate tweets to or about these women constitute a minuscule fraction of the total.

According to the figures in the article quoted, only 3.6% of the 500000 tweets examined referred to Quinn, Sarkeesian, or Wu. (And that's assuming none referred to more than one of them - if more than one was mentioned in a significant number, the percentage would be even less.)

3.6 per cent.
 
And the percentage of tweets classed as negative in sentiment towards one of those women? About 0.2%.
 
As I said, that is because if you tweet "Anita wrote her own death threats", that is going to be perceived as negative by a human, but not by a computer algorithm. Denial of what is going on on Twitter is silly. It is a public platform. Everybody can go, search for the #Gamergate hashtag and *instantly* get confirmation that Gamergate is a movement of harassing women in gaming.

Are you saying that the New York Times is lying on their front page?
 
Tobold,

I do find it troublesome that one of the females affected by Zoe's sexual exploits actually posted in response to Chris's rant, where she self identified as the "other" woman. With all of the back-peddling that Zoe has done trying to publicly deny she was doing anything morally or ethically wrong, her credibility in this whole affair is very weak, and it has me wondering why it's considered ok for her to behave this way...seeing as how it keeps getting swept under the "fact rug".
 
seeing as how it keeps getting swept under the "fact rug"

I think you are confusing two very different things here:

A) Is cheating on your boyfriend morally and ethically wrong? Yes, most people would think it is.

B) Should gaming news sites report on games developers' sex life? No, most people would consider that private and not "news worthy".

I don't think anybody swept anything under a "fact rug" because of A). I believe that most gaming sites did not report on this because of B).

This leads us to the core problem of Gamergate: The movement claims to be interested in a matter of public concern, journalistic ethics. But most of the actually voiced criticism and discussion under the hashtag is about private matters: "He said, she said", doxxing (the ultimate privacy invasion), who slept with whom, who insulted who, who tweeted what, and so on.
 
Tobold, you talk about the "computer algorithm" but all you are saying is that the link *you linked yourself* is to a bunch of utter incompetents. There were 18000 tweets in total that were sent to or mentioned one of the three women concerned. About 5% were assessed as negative, Without doing any statistical calculations, I would guess you could probably assess the negative tweet percentage to within 5% by analysing a random sample of 1000 tweets. ONE PERSON COULD HUMANLY ASSESS 1000 TWEETS IN A SINGLE WORKING DAY>

Newsweek is a journal known the world over. The hired a company called Brandwatch to analyse sentiment. Are you suggesting that Brandwatch did not even bother to do a single day's work, just got some idiot to churn some numbers through a computer and print out a meaningless report, and that Newsweek then wrote an article based on that garbage? And that you, Tobold, linked the article, and when it turned out not to say what you wanted it to say, you said "ah well, the figures are all rubbish anyway, but somehow it still proves my point". It seems your assessment of journalism is even lower than that of the Gamergaters, and you are not applying higher standards to yourself either!

Even if every single 'gamergate' tweet relating to those three women was negative, instead of a tiny fraction of them, it would still amount to only 3.6% of tweets tagged #gamergate.

And no, I'm not saying the New York Times is lying. Anita Sarkeesian has certainly received death threats. A lot of the rest of the article is speculation.

It also says "the hashtag #StopGamerGate2014 became a trending topic on Twitter". The article was dated 10/16. A quick check on Topsy shos that despite the best efforts of ISIS re-tweeting bots, the hashtag was essentially dead after three days, the 16th being the last. Isn't journalism wonderful?
 
"Everybody can go, search for the #Gamergate hashtag and *instantly* get confirmation that Gamergate is a movement of harassing women in gaming."

Just as an experiment, I looked at the last 50 tweets tagged #gamergate. One was in Spanish. Of the other 49, NONE consisted of any kind of harassment. If anything, a majority were shrieking about how gamergate is about harassment (and they were not written by anyone aligned to gamergate).
 
(And, for the record, one of the 50 was written by Brianna Wu. Apart from that, none of them mentioned Quinn, Sarkeesian or Wu.)
 
Are you suggesting that Brandwatch did not even bother to do a single day's work, just got some idiot to churn some numbers through a computer and print out a meaningless report, and that Newsweek then wrote an article based on that garbage?

I am saying that you take a long article full of meaningful data (number of times women are mentioned under the Gamergate hashtag compared to number of times men are mentioned), totally ignore that meaning, focus on a tiny detail of extended analysis which in my opinion is not very meaningful, and declare that the whole article is "garbage" because not every detail is perfect.

You did EXACTLY the same thing with Chris Kluwe's post when asked what was wrong with it: You took some insignificant detail, said it was wrong, and triumphantly declared that because of that the whole article was false. Sorry, things just don't work like that. Nothing is ever perfect and 100% correct in every tiny detail. And you being able to find the 1% that is wrong doesn't invalidate the 99% that are right.

I assume you do that maliciously. The other explanation is that you are intellectually incapable of finding the core message of a long post and responding to that. Neither of the possible explanation puts you in a positive light.

I've posted for a long time on this blog, and I don't think my views are all that eccentric.

Eccentric certainly not, because you are part of a large hate mob armed with torches and pitchforks. I would however suggest that your views can be seen as repugnant by those who do not share them. And that they aren't seen as very convincing by many people. If given the choice whether to believe the New York Times version of events or the 8chan version of events, a large majority of people will opt for the New York Times.
 
Tobold, you can do better than this. Where exactly is the data on the number of times women are mentioned versus the number of times men are mentioned? the article referred to specific peiople. It did not aggregate data on males versus females generally. And did you notice that of the men and women selected, the percentage of negative tweets was greater for the men?

As for Kluwe's post, I said that it was based on lies. When challenged, I pointed out the lies in just one paragraph. Neither you nor anyone else has attem,pted to rebut what I've said.

Yes, I can find the core meaning in a long post. And when that core meaning is based on lies, I feel justified on pointing it out.

Those weren't insignificant details in Kluwe's post. They were straight-up lies.

"And that they aren't seen as very convincing by many people."

Reality is not constructed by democratic vote, or by whoever can scream loudest in the media. (Well, postmodernists might debate that, but I'm more on the science side in that particular culture war, which often intersects with other culture wars.)

You are accusing me of being malicious and/or stupid, because I point out contradictions and errors of fact in what you want to believe. Another poster wanted me deleted and banned (and asked for his post calling for that to be conveniemtly deleted). There are far more negative posts against Gerry Quinn on this blog than there are negative tweets against Zoe Quinn in Gamergate! Don't worry, my back is broad!

Tobold, there are certainly some nasty people aligned with Gamergate. There are some nasty people on the other side too (and I am not referring to you),
 
Tobold, there are certainly some nasty people aligned with Gamergate. There are some nasty people on the other side too (and I am not referring to you)/

Agree on both points.

Nevertheless I'd like to point out that I never tried to whitewash any of that nastiness on either side. But YOU wrote in this very comment thread that only Brianna Wu received death threats, excused that by saying that she was "trolling", and pretended that the death threats to Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian were not related, and that they deserved them anyway for being horrible people.

This is exactly the sort of discourse that makes the New York Times ask whether video games can survive the toxic community revealed by Gamergate.

Reality is not constructed by democratic vote

Exactly! Reality is constructed by what people read and believe. And they tend to believe certain publications more than others. Which is why an article printed in the New York Times has more weight than a blog post or a tweet. While I am sure that you will find details to nitpick in the New York Times article I linked to above, for most people who learn about Gamergate through that article, the description of Gamergate written there becomes reality. Just like for you something you read on 8chan or elsewhere about various women in gaming has become reality, even if it is probably even further from any "universal truth".
 
"But YOU wrote in this very comment thread that only Brianna Wu received death threats"

No, I did not. In fact I said in particular that Sarkeesian did, and I said that Quinn received online abuse (which may or may not have included death threats, I don't know). Check my posts, and you'll find it's so.

"excused that by saying that she [Wu] was "trolling"

I didn't excuse it. I stated that she was trolling. It is a fact that Wu sent a large number of incendiary Gamergate-tagged tweets under a variety of sock-puppet accounts. To say that the attacks on her may be partially consequential on this is not to excuse them.

"Reality is constructed by what people read and believe". Very postmodern of you, Tobold. But you know, there's actually an atomic reality that doesn't depend on consensus.

Gamergaters are in the same position as all conservatives, they are recognising that they will be vilified by the media whatever they do. So they don't fight on that hill anymore.

Do you care about truth, Tobold? Are you happy that those who scream the loudest create your reality?

A while ago, I remember you posted that if you said you disagreed with feminism, you would probably be sacked from your job. It must be unpleasant to live in such fear. No surprise, then, that you try to dispel the cognitive dissonance by believing that those who bully you are *right*.

As for 8chan, believe it or not, I never go there (nor Twitter either). There are plenty of more content-based sources.
 
But you know, there's actually an atomic reality that doesn't depend on consensus.

As scientist I am very well aware of atomic reality. Atomic reality covers things like physics and chemistry. It doesn't cover things like religion and morals. When you say that Zoe Quinn cheating on her boyfriend is morally wrong, that isn't atomic reality. It is a judgement. It depends on consensus, there have been societies where adultery wasn't considered morally wrong.

What you appear to be missing is that if given the two statements "Zoe Quinn cheated on her boyfriend" and "Utah State University received a threat of a mass shooting if Anita Sarkeesian was allowed to speak", it doesn't matter that both statements are "facts". And it doesn't matter that one of those facts looks bad for an anti-Gamergater, and the other fact looks bad for Gamergate. You can't count that as a 1:1 score and call it even.

People make moral judgments based on those facts. And the "score" of that moral judgement is based on how common and how repulsive the action in question is. Cheating on a boyfriend ranks low, it is common, and most people don't even consider it newsworthy. A mass shooting threat is rare, a matter of public interest and highly repulsive. Even if given just those two facts, Gamergate just lost with a score 1 to 100. Normal people judge the things that Gamergate did much more harshly than the things that Gamergate is complaining about.

That hasn't anything to do with postmodernism or screaming loudly, but with the atomic reality of how "facts" shape our opinions. The New York Times does not scream loudly. It has serious journalist reporting verified facts. If your reality differs from the reality of the New York Times, have you considered the possibility that it is your reality that is wrong?
 
It would not be the first time my reality differed from that of the New York Times. One should always consider such possibilities. But if I repeatedly rebut the arguments you make with facts, maybe it is you who should consider it. You have accused me of nit-picking, but the points I addressed were the ones raised by you, which - after I pointed out their flaws - you decided were unimportant after all.

There is, of course, no particular comparison between the two statements "Zoe Quinn cheated on her boyfriend" and "Utah State University received a threat of a mass shooting if Anita Sarkeesian was allowed to speak". So why are you juxtaposing them? Sarkeesian received threats long before, including a bomb threat back in March. There's no particular reason to suppose that the most recent one is anything to do with 'Gamergate'. As for Ms. Quinn, nobody particularly cares who she sleeps with. Just because a particular incident provided the spark to light the fuse, doesn't mean it's all about her. Your own figures show that only 1% of tweets tagged 'Gamergate' refer to her, and most are neutral. (Actually most of them are probably just idiots screaming about how Gamergate is about her.)

Atomic reality covers facts. It covers what was actually posted on twitter. It covers what happened on a particular date, and what date it happened. All all the bloggers in all the world can attempt to forge a consensus, but if their consensus does not match atomic reality it is false and will collapse.

The New York Times need not worry - video games will survive. But indeed it is possible that they will not be moulded in the fashion that the writer wishes. The fact is, gamers do not dance to the tune of left-wing cultural critics. And this is really what it's all about.
 
The fact is, gamers do not dance to the tune of left-wing cultural critics. And this is really what it's all about.

Yes. And I find it deplorable that Gamergate as a movement is unable to admit this. The actions of Gamergaters are mostly limited to harassment of women in gaming. And their stated purpose (which strangely is almost never part of the actual discussion) is about "journalistic ethics". Why can't Gamergate come out of the closet and admit that they are a right-wing movement against left-wing influences on game design?
 
Well, they aren't, really. Nor are they about harassing women. Their most famous victory so far, after all, has been getting Intel to drop advertising from Gamasutra. I hope you don't think that just because Leigh Alexander is female, that constitutes "harassment of women in gaming"?

Gamergaters don't mind at all if there are feminist and gay-friendly games. What they object to, I believe, is a regime in which all games must be subjected to a rigid ideological straitjacket.

They are a conservative movement who haven't really analysed yet what they are about. All they know is that they've been attacked. And (this is where they differ from many others who've been attacked in the same way) they are ready, willing and capable of fighting, even if the battle lines haven't been drawn up to everyone's satisfaction.

The SJWs bit off more than they could chew, and they don't know what's hit them. They're going for their standard plan of attack, which is to demonise their opponents in the media, regardless of facts. But make no mistake, they attacked first. And this time, they have encountered no mean foe.
 
Their most famous victory so far, after all, has been getting Intel to drop advertising from Gamasutra. I hope you don't think that just because Leigh Alexander is female, that constitutes "harassment of women in gaming"?

Let me say it that way: Which of the following goals does this victory most ressemble:
A) Hurt a woman who wrote an opinion about gaming
or
B) Hurt corruption in game journalism?

I'd say it's A). In fact getting a big company to influence a video game journalistic site's writing *is* a form of corruption, and should not be encouraged.

If Gamergate would be honest in describing themselves as a right-wing movement with goal
C) Hurt left-wing journalism about video games
the picture changes and looks a lot less worse for Gamergate.
 
Tobold, you care too much about what people think something can be made "resemble". Gamergate don't worry so much about that. That's why they are winning. When propaganda is all your side has got, your side is losing, however loud it screeches.

Are you really arguing that just because Alexander (a self-described "megaphone" and "career-destroyer") is involved, everything must be about "misogyny"? That's just silly. In any case, I believe the latest site to take some hits is Gawker, and the articles/tweets involved there were written by a male journalist.

As for the right-left issue, I don't think most Gamergaters are consciously on the right. In fact, I've noticed a lot of them expressing surprise (which seems genuine) to suddenly find themselves on the same side as those of us who always leaned right!
 
Huh? What makes you think that Gamergate is winning? It has been very much discredited by general media, and thus wields absolutely no influence on game design. Meanwhile the politically correct brigade is influencing game design every day. How could Gamergate possibly win anything if right now the only ones listening to it are other Gamergaters? Yes, the can still hurt media and women, but that doesn't give them any real power or influence. Gamergate pretty much already completely lost this culture war.
 
Declare victory. Run away.

Most people are silent, because they are afraid of both sides. It's *easier* to post against gamergate. See the attacks I got here, and I'm basically anonymous. If I revealed my identity, I'd be receiving threats instead of just abuse and ban demands. But its existence strengthens people. The Left have been badly damaged here, and the war will go on.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
The Left have been badly damaged here, and the war will go on.

Hurting individual members of the left on a personal level is not the same as hurting "The Left". "The Left" won a decisive media victory here. The opinion of an Anita Sarkeesian on how a video game should be designed will be heard much more in the future than it was in the past, just because of all the free publicity she got and how Gamergate strengthened her image as a victim.
 
And who's hunting them? Not me, and not 99% of gamergaters either. As for Sarkeesian, she was perfectly well-known in the industry, and had long ago reported receiving threats, so I doubt it makes a lot of difference. She was hired months ago by Electronic Arts, consistently named "the worst game company ever".

After everyone's 15 minutes of fame have died down, a lot of people will have realised that they need to take sides in a larger culture war. And the anti-gaters were already on the attack, for the most part.
 
After everyone's 15 minutes of fame have died down, a lot of people will have realised that they need to take sides in a larger culture war.

Might be more than 15 minutes. Without your help Anita wouldn't have made it to national television.

And I am unsure how in its current form Gamergate is encouraging anybody to take the right wing side in this culture war. I'm pretty certain that this is one of those issues where 1% on each side feels very strongly about, but the 98% in the middle just don't care. And why should they? Most people can't be bothered to save the boob plate. Even for the average game player that is a non-issue.
 
Really, I find it ironic that GamerGate has done more to elevate Anita Sarkeesian than Anita herself has ever done. I mean, getting onto Colbert Report is big stuff. It's even hitting my general news podcasts which have little to nothing to do with gaming. I'm hardly a fan of Anita Sarkeesian's work, but when my "On The Media" podcast is taking her side in all of this, it's hard not to see #GamerGate as losing the media PR battle.
 
>After everyone's 15 minutes of fame have died down, a lot of people will have realised that they need to take sides in a larger culture war. And the anti-gaters were already on the attack, for the most part.

I honestly don't see why anyone should be taking sides in this "war", when both sides aren't even fighting about the same thing.

#GamerGate is (supposedly) about ethics in journalism.

SJWs/Anita Sarkeesian is about females in video games.

I don't see how someone can't be for ethical journalism AND proper female representation in video games.
 
As a long time Australian gamer I had no idea who any of these people were before all this commenced.

Thankyou for enlightening me. I am enjoying their podcasts.

Also now a very proud father of 6 year old girls. I am very happy that there is a full range of games (mainly iPad apps right now) that I can choose from to help them learn and have fun with.

Gaming is mainstream. I am also loving it. The Gamer is Dead, Long Live the Gamer!
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home
Newer›  ‹Older

  Powered by Blogger   Free Page Rank Tool