It's this thing on the Internet.

URL to share (right click and copy)

Zero said:

I took the same test, BTW. It was highly flawed. The way the questions are worded, you sort of have to be a huge asshole to not get left libertarian.

Yep, I just went hunting for the test out of curiosity, and there's a lot of absolute statements in there. A lot of stuff I was thinking 'But what if this was the situation? I'd choose the opposite if this was the case'. But the way it's worded, you don't have that option. And no 'Neutral' stance either.



Last time I did one of these I was in the exact opposite spot- Slightly into the Right/Authoritarian quadrant. So...I dunno.


Also, look at this:



Our ex-PM is sitting deep into the blue. Our Socialist-Forum, Mining taxing Ex-PM.

Come on.

.... *facepalm*

Scarlett Johansson might play Zoe Quinn in a movie about Gamergate

No that isn't an Onion headline it is real. Mind you the headline is slightly inaccurate... it'd be a movie about Zoe / internet harassment, not Gamergate. Gamergate would just figure heavily into it being her main harassers.

Gamergate is having a heart attack over this one.

If they want to make a film against the GamerGate movement, I'd suggest a better heroine than Zoe Quinn (who I personally think is kinda gross). I mean, she's hardly a Rosa Parks.

I don't know who else the story should be about other than Zoe Quinn. She's pretty much the central figure in the whole Gamergate thing. Whether she's Rosa Parks or not doesn't really enter into it. The only other person it could possibly be about is Anita, and that part of the story's not quite as interesting.

I think it's perfect that Scarlett Johansson would play the role, since she's this generation's big sex symbol and sex is the fundamental emotional driver of this whole thing.

I just wonder who would actually want to watch a whole movie about how idiotic Gamergate is. It could be an "important" and "relevant" movie, but I can't imagine it being one I'd personally want to see.

EDIT: And I'll already give it the award for 'Most Shots of Actors Staring at Computer Screens' years before the film is even released.

@kriswright

It's because if you want the audience to sympathize with your main character, it helps if your victim is someone endearing and likable. Zoe Quinn had her dirty laundry unfairly aired for the world to see and received a disproportionate amount of hate for it...but she's still gross. It makes me think it won't be a terribly endearing movie because of that; basically two unlikable groups yelling at each other, with one being more wrong than the other. Of course, I've had a (an uncharacteristically?) misanthropic view of everyone involved in this nonsense from the beginning, so maybe I'm in the minority. But you said it yourself:

kriswright said:

It could be an "important" and "relevant" movie, but I can't imagine it being one I'd personally want to see.

@TriforceBun

Well, apart from being promiscuous, which I think you and I will agree Hollywood decision makers don't consider a problem, what did Zoe do that was so gross? Let's start there.

EDIT: Just realized the movie is being adapted from Zoe's memoir. So, yeah, the point is moot. Everyone's a hero in their own memoir. One of my favorite quotes from David Foster Wallace (paraphrased): I don't trust memoirs because I think they all have a secret project, which is to make the reader believe the writer is as interesting as the writer believes themselves to be.

@TriforceBun

So you think it was unfair that her dirty laundry was aired, but you're still willing to use it to judge her as gross, presumably based on very little else and without knowing her personally?

@kriswright @TriforceBun And let's stick to the facts, not the loose Gamergate conspiracy theories. I mean yeah, she slept around. As Kris aptly stated that isn't particularly a problem for Hollywood. What else did she do? I think she carried herself pretty well in the face of a year long unending wall of harassment and abuse.

Anyway, though she is at the center of it and her book is what is propelling the movie, I think the "story" is going to be more about the fact that these sort of faceless, global targeted abuse campaigns are something sort of unprecedented before the Internet and no one quite knows how to deal with them yet. And what she has done is not just survive it but started a support organization for victims of online harassment, worked with the freaking UN on fighting online harassment, wrote a book on it, etc.

There's your Hollywood story. New form of abuse, targets a woman and tries to destroy her, she stands strong in the face of it, works towards solutions, gets to visit the UN. I mean yeah the actual movie will probably be 5% truth and a whole lot of Hollywood, but that's what you get if you go see a movie to try to learn about a real person.

So, here's the thing, I want to contribute to this conversation. I want people to be able to have a conversation about topics like these. But, we all know that's not possible, at least in this format, right? Like, I want to introduce some items to this thread that haven't been mentioned in the last couple posts. But, let's say I introduce them. People who don't like them or agree with them or want to acknowledge them will look for ways to dismiss them. I'll say why their criteria for dismissal is invalid. They'll argue for why it is valid. Somewhere along the line apples will get introduced to the conversation about oranges. Now the conversation has veered off into strictly apple talk. Then pears. Then grapefruit. People will go back and forth defending their beliefs the same way people argue over why Nintendo is better than Microsoft and vice versa. Except, this topic is "important."

Now, I feel like unless you have the "right" stance in these "important" debates, you are judged as a bad person. There also seems to be very little wiggle room on what is precisely the right stance. It's sad to see people who agree 99% tearing each other apart over that last 1%. Which is why a lot of people who don't have the exact right stance just keep their mouths shut. See: Joss Whedon. See: spiral of silence.

So, this is largely why I try to stay far away from these conversations these days. My career has been seriously harmed because I didn't have the same opinions as my superiors about Anita Sarkeesian. I've shared this story with a few NWers over the years, but, yea, it sucks. I have no idea how to repair that damage. So, the lesson I learned was to just keep your mouth shut when you don't have the right things to say.

Now, you might be thinking "well, you're certainly not keeping your mouth shut right now. In fact, you posting to tell us how you're not gonna post on this subject makes me even MORE offended than if you had just posted your thoughts and argued with me!" Well, I apologize for that. But, these days I almost never feel comfortable saying something of meaning on these topics, yet I didn't want to once again say nothing at all. So, this was the result. I just had to get it off my chest.

@NinSage

Yeah, but this has been one of your moves for awhile - to enter the debate without debating. I mean, I get that you have anxiety over blowback on your opinion - every reasonable person does - but your choice there is clear: Either give your opinion or don't. That's your choice. You can't just kind of float in and say, "I have a strong opinion but you guys wouldn't accept it for reasons. Just trust me, I'm right."

I stay out of things a lot, too, just out of weariness of going through this crap again (and your Whedon point is fair). So I get that. But at the end of the day you either gotta stick your neck out or don't.

@NinSage

I hear that. The weird part is that the "right stance" folks don't even seem to see that this is the case most of the time, too. It's like this laser trip wire: You can't go through it gently. If you break the beam, boom, every alarm wails and they come in to beat you to death with clubs. :P

And I'm not speaking of this topic, really, just a general observation of online communication about these "important topics" as you said.

kriswright said:

But at the end of the day you either gotta stick your neck out or don't.

I think his point is the world has taught him to sit down and shut up, otherwise you get attacked. Which, you're still right, continues to be a choice, but it's a lousy choice that has to be made and the world would do wise to see that fact and back off when people share any opinion, as the majority claims is the kind of openness they strive for. But it's not the kind of openness they really want. They want to be able to share the opinion they believe personally is "right" and shut up the folks who have the "wrong" opinion. Then they hide behind "that other opinion is hurtful and wrong" and literally bully people who have it, shaming them into submission.

At some point you give up and say "Why bother? These people aren't willing to be open enough to listen. They just want to be 'right.'" And that's the real shame, because then communication dies, and "understanding" has no chance to appear.

And then, eventually, we have wars and kill millions of people because we refused to ever try to understand and accept people even if we disagree with them.

EDIT: Regarding the film, I think I agree that it will be a tiny percentage of truth and almost entirely Hollywood entertainment. It would be interesting to see the film made from both sides, instead of just one. I think that would do the most good, honestly. Then people could get a better idea of the whole picture, not just the one the producers want the audience to see. But then, I guess that's the "news'" job, and they have long since taken their cues from Hollywood. So we're left with two Hollywood perspectives and zero fair showing of all angles. Is it any wonder people are so zealous about these topics and other popular topics online?

@J.K. Riki

How do you tell the GamerGate story from both sides? I mean either she slept with the guy to win favorable reviews about her game or she didn't.

@Jargon

If it was that clear cut, there wouldn't be a reason to make a movie, right?

@J.K. Riki

No, they make movies based on real life events that are clear cut all the time. Should they have shown George Wallace's side more in Selma?*

No, I'm not comparing Zoe Quinn to Martin Luther King.

Yeah there really is no "two sides" here unless you want to dive into trying to hear the side of the group who started based on a ten times disproven lie, openly pushed their made up conspiracy theories, never really put together any coherent arguments that enough of their group agree with, claims that no one can actually speak for them anyway, targets and harasses anyone who opposes them en masse, etc. The only honest look at Gamergate is that it is a mess and steeped in harassment, a conclusion that pretty much every "3rd party" observer has come to fairly easily. You'll find some decent people caught up in the mess but to focus on them is ignoring the bigger picture of what is actually going on here, a mob of angry people harming others, Gamergate's legacy. I mean, it's nice to make it clear that not every person involved in a mob is necessarily an EVIL person, but the mob as a whole can and should be condemned instead of given a platform to push their lies. And in the end I think that is what this movie is going to focus on, not individuals but how bad mob actions can get.

But again, until they can come together enough to determine who is even allowed to speak for them, it's a moot point. The few times "Gamergate" has been at public events the masses of Gamergate just end up claiming every thing one of them says that they don't like doesn't count. Like, for instance, when they went to that journalist panel and Milo openly stated that it's not actually "just about ethics" and most certainly is about fighting against feminism. Something that is clearly true but Gamergaters do not like admitting because it kills their "we're just neutral people concerned about ethics" narrative. So you have a bunch of them just harping on how no it is just about ethics Milo doesn't represent us because no one can represent us because we're all unique individuals. So like, what Gamergate do you present here? The true one? Already being done, and they don't like it. The one they want to push? Good luck finding anyone they agree is allowed to speak for them, and then double good luck finding that person but who will also be honest and tell the truth.

And the thing is, as far as I can gather ultimately this is not so much a movie about Gamergate but a movie about a woman who faced a year of nearly unending harassment of some of the worst types (absolutely a verifiable fact, she has publicly posted a lot of her abuse and it is VILE), and is now working to fight online harassment in general. Gamergate happens to play a huge role in that being a group that harasses people a lot, and massively harasses Zoe Quinn specifically. You're making a movie about a woman who was harassed for a year straight and the movie is about the types and forms of harassment that exist online and how severe they can get and what can potentially be done about them. What is the "other side" of that exactly? Honestly the only "other side" I tend to see there is "it's not that bad so let's all stop talking about it" and that's not much of an other side.

I think there are some interesting movies to be made from the perspective of bullies so we can try to understand better why bullies exist, but I don't think every movie about someone who has been bullied / their bullies has to dive into the views and perspectives of the bullies.

@NinSage
I think it's true that these types of topics are almost impossible to discuss on the internet without people who don't toe the party line being immediately vilified as monsters and harshly dismissed. Which is not cool. It's not that I'm pro-GamerGate (whatever the fuck GamerGate is supposed to be). It's just that I don't think stifling conversation and publicly shaming actually help matters. It just makes the internet a nastier place. And the world, as well, since those opposing opinions will just fester and grow more and more extreme until they become, in the words of Principal Skinner, a powder keg waiting to go off in an explosion of unacceptable behavior.

I dunno if it's the anonymity of the internet or just mass exposure to public opinion, but I feel that empathy is pretty lacking in today's world. Or maybe it always was, and it's just more apparent since everyone vomits up the deepest contents of their soul onto the internet? I wish society would shift from the judgmental side of the spectrum to the empathetic side. Everybody has traits that others take exception to (as well as traits which others appreciate). Judge not lest ye be judged. Or whatever.

Anyway, I wasn't aware of that Joss Whedon thing at all. I'm going to go voraciously consume all of the juicy details while exercising. (Which is somewhat of a personal failing: The sick fascination with human ugliness. I know that nothing good will come out of reading nasty threads and comment sections. But I can't resist! It's just so juicy! Like Star Magazine! Or the original Zoe Quinn blog post.)

Zero said:

Yeah there really is no "two sides" here unless you want to dive into trying to hear the side of the group who started based on a ten times disproven lie, openly pushed their made up conspiracy theories, never really put together any coherent arguments that enough of their group agree with, claims that no one can actually speak for them anyway, targets and harasses anyone who opposes them en masse, etc.

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. Because that is the other side. The side that people just rail against without trying to understand, leading to nothing but more anger/resentment and no actual peaceful outcome. That is why real debates (rare as they are) are nice, because it's not just personal attacks and name-calling, it's people having real, honest discussions that can truly change opinions, potentially. If sides are open to it, but if not at least the audience has a chance to hear the totality of the information available.

Though as Anand said, it may simply be impossible for such a thing to happen online. Shame, such a good communication tool and we can't even handle it. But perhaps that is why two films (or a balanced single one) would be so useful. As you said at the end of your post, we need to understand why bullies exist, not just vilify them for entertainment's sake.

Anand said:

Judge not lest ye be judged. Or whatever.

Whether you believe the text of the Bible to be divine or not, there's a reason that statement had to be included in there. Because, as you said, the Internet has just allowed for us to be louder versions of who we've been all along. This is people, the human race, throughout history. We just get to see it with a terrifyingly clear set of goggles in our age. It is very hard to ignore now.

That sounds bleak, but I don't think it necessarily is. We need to see that truth so we can change. We need to see the darkness in ourselves (along with all the others) so we can hope, and work for a better future. Not some "next generation" future, but a better literal tomorrow. The beautiful verse that goes so well with the one you mentioned is "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" The Internet has made it so, so easy to see that we love looking at the sawdust in our brothers' eyes. It's easy, and we've almost made a game out of it at this point. Or at least a club, which is how things like Gamersgate happen.

Also very nice post overall. Thumbs up, I really appreciate the sentiments. :)

kriswright said:

Yeah, but this has been one of your moves for awhile - to enter the debate without debating.

I guess so. The frustration of watching people go around in circles for literally years builds up and eventually I feel compelled to say something, but I don't want to get involved, so, that's what happens. You say it like I do it all the time though. How many times have I said something like this? Less than 10? Than 5? How many posts have the usual suspects made kicking each other around without resolution? Hundreds? So, please forgive me this indulgence every now and then.

Plus, my big problem is with the text-based, asynchronicity of a forum format. I've offered nearly everyone I've disagreed with to meet on Skype and talk over our differences in real time using voices that have tone to convey feeling. Over the years and dozens of offers, Anand is literally the only person to ever take me up on it. We disagreed plenty but in the end I think we had just a shred more understanding for each other's points than when we started. And that was the point as far as I was concerned. We even got a great running gag where Anand calls me a terrible person in private

So, please remember that I have always been willing to engage and exchange ideas. I've just found this specific format to be lacking -- yet people won't let go of it.

kriswright said:

I mean, I get that you have anxiety over blowback on your opinion - every reasonable person does - but your choice there is clear: Either give your opinion or don't. That's your choice. You can't just kind of float in and say, "I have a strong opinion but you guys wouldn't accept it for reasons. Just trust me, I'm right."

I don't think I said I was right and I certainly didn't mean to imply it. I said I wanted to contribute my thoughts to the conversation. Be a part of the exchange of ideas. Nothing more. I think that makes a big difference. Obviously we all personally believe we are right, but I try not to present my beliefs as objective truths. I'm sorry if I ever did.

kriswright said:

I stay out of things a lot, too, just out of weariness of going through this crap again (and your Whedon point is fair). So I get that. But at the end of the day you either gotta stick your neck out or don't.

Kind of easy to say when you're not (as?) worried about how saying these things will affect your relationships and career though, right? I want to come here and have a good relaxing time talking with online buddies about our mutual gaming interests. But, for a long time now, I've felt like that can't happen here, or can't happen smoothly, because everyone has drawn battle lines and even though I don't want to be anyone's enemy, I feel like my beliefs will do that automatically for some people. I'd rather just enjoy games with people here. If people want to be activists, there are lots of other places on the internet they could do that -- probably with a stronger impact too. But like, people have left this place for these reasons. And I know it's tempting to say "well those people weren't cool, so, good riddance!" But, ya know, I think it would have been OK if this was just a cool gaming forum. I think that would have been enough. Because if you keep digging on personal topics like this, you can probably find ways to make enemies of your family, friends, coworkers, etc. But we don't because sometimes we just want a friend or a coworker and not a debate partner.

I know, I know, these topics are so important that we must carry the burden of inconvenience to progress them. Mere gaming fun can wait, right? Well, I'm sorry, I ain't seeing the progress. I see verbal MMA all over the internet. I see people hunkering down in their echo-chambers and treating social issues like sports teams. It's the same reason we complain about why government can't get anything done. No one listens, no one budges. We're getting no where. This approach is not progress. ... of course, that is only my opinion. I could be wrong. It's happened before.

As for my career, I have applications out all the time. Many of them are for games-related positions so I list the podcast. I'm introduced as NinSage on the podcast. Anyone evaluating me for a position could read over what I say here and how others interpret it. Odds are, that person won't be very familiar with the complexities of the situation. They'll just see a bunch of people kinda, sorta implying some vague kind of intolerance because I don't have the right attitude. Me, and my career, have seen first hand how dangerous that is.

I'd love to avoid it all entirely for self-preservation's sake, but, you can't escape these topics - facebook, comic forums, video game news sites... They're all enjoying the endless traffic that is social justice headlines. I come here to talk about my favorite video games but these topics keep flashing across the front page. I want to just come here and chill and talk games, but when I keep seeing debates on these subjects rage on it's like advertising -- the more you're reminded of it the more you'll think about it whether you like it or not. I do care about these topics and have felt very passionate about them since long before twitter, so, it's very hard to just bite my tongue as long as I usually do. But, there really doesn't seem to be an upside to it so I really try to keep quiet.

Someone was cool enough to PM me based on what I wrote and ask about what I wanted to talk about. So, we'll see. Maybe we'll talk on skype or in a private chat or something and maybe we'll each gain a little more knowledge. That would be nice. Or, maybe nothing good will come of it. But I think it has a better success rate than these threads tend to. So, I guess I'm glad I said this nothing/something for that reason. Don't worry though, I'm really going to continue trying not to make a habit of it.

Even though I'm sure we would disagree on plenty of important things, it looks like there are at least some we would agree on. But, that's kind of irrelevant for me, Kris. I have seen that, regardless of politics, you're a very likable, admirable, clever, and hilarious person. That's the kind of interaction I come here for. It's just a shame that this stuff gets in the way and forces a choice that I don't think we should be forced to make -- we have to either fight or bite our tongues. It's a video game forum for Pete's sake. Surely there's another way.

@J.K. Riki

I agree with everything you just said. Maybe we should start our own echo-chamber. =P
... that was a joke.


EDIT: Sorry, I was typing so long I missed 3 posts.
Zero - I love ya like a brother. For serious. But we'll probably never see eye-to-eye on these topics. And that's OK.
Anand - Rock on. You're invited to the echo-chamber too.
JK Riki - Quite well said. You're promoted to Captain in my new echo-chamber.
.... still all a joke.

@J.K. Riki

Ok, so you're the director of the movie. Zoe Quinn says she received specific death threats before speaking at a panel. Gamergate says she fabricated them herself to make Gamergate look bad. In your balanced film, what do you depict in the scene portraying these events?