It's this thing on the Internet.

URL to share (right click and copy)

@Jargon

I'm not interested in silencing progressive ideas. I am a progressive liberal for cripes sakes! But wanting to do a good, or at least better job of it, one that doesn't involve the digital warfare of the current approach, does not make one part of the problem. It just comes off as lazy and irresponsible when people try to say Anita's work or methods can't be improved on. Even if we assume Anita's work is good, research never stops trying to improve and retest and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not considered offensive outside of this situation.

But, this is why it doesn't work in these conversations. We never end up talking about how to make things better. It always quickly crumbles into people just trying to win an online debate. I don't know why that's so appealing to people who claim to want inclusiveness and representation and equality. But again, that's why people don't believe in the sincerity of the people behind these causes. Using the fear of accusations of bigotry to bring about "change" is not lasting or strong in my opinion.

Guillaume said:

Listen to yourself. Read what you write.

At least that would make one of us, yea? Sorry, it was right there....

Guillaume said:

If you want a one-on-one conversation with someone about Anita, you gotta show it's going to be worthwhile,

You never even gave me a chance, Gui. Right from the start it felt like you were just out to make me feel wrong. I don't know that you do any more than knee-jerk reactions -- that's just what I've observed, maybe I'm wrong. So, yea, we might not get anywhere, but I was always willing to try because I used to have so much respect and admiration and outright gratitude towards you. This bullsh*t situation is designed to drive a wedge between people because conflict generates web clicks. So, yea, they succeeded. Look at the culture of gaming post-Tropes? I know a lot of you see it as sorting out the bad apples or something, but, a lot of just see a bloody mess.

And hey, if you trust Anand's opinion, he did take me up on a Skype chat. Ask him how it went. Ask him in private and get the real scoop. As I said, we disagreed plenty but parted on perfectly pleasant terms. You know, I do have these talks with people like DocFink, and we don't agree on everything either. But ya know what? He is a great friend and treats me (and everyone) with respect. And so we get along just fine even on sensitive topics. It's not magic.

I don't like arguing like this. I feel like a lot of people love the fight but I never have. They see themselves as literally warriors vanquishing evil. I don't see it that way. That's why I didn't want to participate.

~~~

So, yea, if it's just gonna be more of this .... just like in the past... it's not worth any of our times so let's just call it quits, eh? Kris, I'll want my money back for this ride you told me to get on! ... just a joke.

Jargon said:

Even if you don't think posting the attacks she's received, in the face of people saying she's making them up, is productive, you might want to think about what might motivate someone to do that under the circumstances instead of immediately going to malevolent motives.

Well why don't you share with me what good giving attention directly to people who are doing what they're doing for attention does? Enlighten me how feeding a troll is a good idea, ever. Please. Seriously. Because you're right, I'm not seeing the non-malevolent motive here. I'm seeing someone doing everything they can for more attention using very foolish methods if they wanted the threats and harassment to stop. However you seem to see it differently, so please explain your view.

I'm for women in gaming. I want to see more women in the industry who want to be there. I want to see more women playing games. And most of all I want to see deeper and more complex female characters instead of shallow stereotypes.

But none of that matters. Because if you're critical of Anita, if you're critical of Zoe Quinn, you're just a sexist, misogynist who is 'just afraid to see things change.' You're as bad as the worst GGer and lumped in with anyone sending rape or death threats. You're generalized, you become part of Zero's "they". You're shut out of the conversation. Ignored and dismissed.

Then you make a lot of people angry by doing this. Then just dismiss that anger as 'just more angry white males who hate women' and it keeps escalating and escalating. Bravo guys.

DapperDave said:

I'm for women in gaming. I want to see more women in the industry who want to be there. I want to see more women playing games. And most of all I want to see deeper and more complex female characters instead of shallow stereotypes.

But none of that matters. Because if you're critical of Anita, if you're critical of Zoe Quinn, you're just a sexist, misogynist who is 'just afraid to see things change.' You're as bad as the worst GGer and lumped in with anyone sending rape or death threats. You're generalized, you become part of Zero's "they". You're shut out of the conversation. Ignored and dismissed.

Then you make a lot of people angry by doing this. Then just dismiss that anger as 'just more angry white males who hate women' and it keeps escalating and escalating. Bravo guys.

This is 100% accurate.

Uh oh, I've got three people here disagreeing with me. What's with this disproportionate witch hunt? This overwhelming backlash? Why can't my ideas be respected?

The fact is that Zero and I haven't called anyone here an angry white male. We haven't called anyone sexist or mysogynist. We haven't ignored or dismissed anyone. DapperDave in particular we've patiently discussed our viewpoints with for pages. And now, all of a sudden it's back to Team A vs Team B and some we're supposedly the ones who are being Manichean.

I haven't even criticized Nintendo here. But somehow defending someone who criticizes Nintendo is taken as an attack on Nintendo fans. I'm as big a Nintendo fan as anyone here and yet I've never felt the least bit implicated or attacked in any of this. Not in the slightest.

JKR, I thought you of all people might understand that feeding the trolls is a very common impulse. Particularly when you're being attacked and people are claiming that you're lying. What happened to "doing your best" like in our PM conversation? Why can't Anita get the slightest benefit of the doubt considering she's just someone interacting with people online same as you and I.

I will say that I am starting agree that if things can just go back to square one like I haven't made any points yet, then yea, this is probably a pointless endeavor.

@JK Riki
@DapperDave

I might go as high as 110%. It's especially interesting when the "angry white males" are cool-headed minorities or women.

I was in a bar earlier this year listening to some live music. The opening act was a women in her 50s (lead vocals) who goes by "Jaynie Crash" and her husband in his 30s (guitar, backing vocals). The next band was four college-age dudes and one woman; typical rock instruments and then the woman played cello. At one point one of their amps started cutting out so there was a pause in their show while they tried to swap out for a new amp. In an attempt to fill time, the lead singer asked the audience, "so, what should we talk about?" One of the singer's friends in the audience shouted "feminism!" To which Jaynie shouted from the audience, "boooo!" The college-age dude on stage was instantly offended and shouts "who said 'boo'??" into his mic. Jaynie yelled "equality for all!" He very coolly and condescendingly replied "feminism means equality for all." Clearly he felt he check-mated that one. Shut that woman up and tell her what's up.

Feminists seem to love that particular come back about the definition of the word.. It's this weird loop-hole that somehow renders real-world observation moot based on a technicality. It would be like if you could say getting slapped was a sign of affection. "Ow! That hurts. Stop slapping me!" "No, you're mistaken, it doesn't hurt. You feel warm and gracious because getting slapped means affection."

So, that was the end of their back-and-forth. They got a new amp and kept playing. After the set I went and asked to sit down with Jaynie and her husband and asked her why she said what she said. Initially she was very apprehensive because I'm sure she thought I was going to try and corner her and "enlighten" her on how wrong she was. I found out their ages when she started telling me about all she's lived through and observed in terms of "modern feminism" has become over the decades.

Anyway, this story is anecdotal evidence which I always say does not count as evidence. So, I mean it as an illustration of one instance in time, the experiences of a few individuals, and nothing more.

Jargon said:

The fact is that Zero and I haven't called anyone here an angry white male. We haven't called anyone sexist or mysogynist. We haven't ignored or dismissed anyone. DapperDave in particular we've patiently discussed our viewpoints with for pages. And now, all of a sudden it's back to Team A vs Team B and some we're supposedly the ones who are being Manichean.

No, no one on NG has called me these things. Didn't mean to imply that. Although some of you have made these assumptions about other people not on here. And now NinSage is questioning a feminist and he is getting hit pretty hard with questioning his motives.

I'm grateful for the discussion. I like to see how people think and why they think them. We are not on Teams, we are exchanging ideas and information. I'm not even sure what exactly we disagree on.

Jargon said:

Uh oh, I've got three people here disagreeing with me. What's with this disproportionate witch hunt? This overwhelming backlash? Why can't my ideas be respected?

Aww, what a butt!

Jargon said:

Uh oh, I've got three people here disagreeing with me. What's with this disproportionate witch hunt? This overwhelming backlash? Why can't my ideas be respected?

Do you realize this is an attack, and not helpful? I'm legitimately asking, because maybe you don't see it that way, and I want to understand if that's the case. If you didn't include things like the above in your posts here, there would be a lot less of an issue. And if it's a joke, it's a poorly placed one, because it is too easily construed as a sarcastic attack. Which immediately sets up anyone reading your post in a defensive manner, priming this argument to continue.

Jargon said:

JKR, I thought you of all people might understand that feeding the trolls is a very common impulse. Particularly when you're being attacked and people are claiming that you're lying. What happened to "doing your best" like in our PM conversation? Why can't Anita get the slightest benefit of the doubt considering she's just someone interacting with people online same as you and I.

Her actions have indicated that she is not "just someone interacting with people online." She has a goal. She has an agenda. Do you agree? I think it's fair to say she is no longer just "someone interacting." She has made it a point to not be. Agree or disagree? Then I will continue, if you want me to finish my response. But if you disagree there, I need to know before I type what's next. So please answer if you agree or disagree with this.

@J.K. Riki

We're all just human beings. For example, I've worked with judges the last two years. They have been given the weight of authority, but that doesn't mean they stop being humans and stop having reactions based on how they are treated. They're better than most at not letting that influence their behavior, that's why they got their job, but they're not perfect.

Anita has a goal of spreading her ideas and improving representation but that doesn't mean she's suddenly going to be immune to reacting like a human. You can argue that these reactions can be counterproductive (although I take issue with the idea that wanting attention is inherently bad when the ideas she is offering should receive attention), but I see no reason why her goals suddenly disqualify her as a human being from receiving the empathy and understanding that you preach. So I disagree.

As for my opening paragraph, it was a rhetorical tool to show how TriforceBun wasn't being treated any differently from anyone else. Yes it was meant to be funny as well. If you want to interpret it as an attack, well there's plenty of material in this conversation that I could credibly point to as an attack on me and you don't seem very concerned about that.

@DapperDave

So who were you referring to when you said "Bravo guys"?

Jargon said:

@DapperDave

So who were you referring to when you said "Bravo guys"?

Anyone who is okay with dismissing any and all criticism as simply angry white males who just don't want to see women in gaming.

@DapperDave

And who is that specifically? You wouldn't be lumping in anyone who criticizes GamerGate as someone who dismisses any and all criticism as simply angry white males who just don't want to see women in gaming, would you? I don't want to become part of DapperDave's "they".

Jargon said:

@DapperDave

And who is that specifically? You wouldn't be lumping in anyone who criticizes GamerGate as someone who dismissed any and all criticism as simply angry white males who just don't want to see women in gaming, would you? I don't want to become part of DapperDave's "they".

I answered your question. If it's someone who does those things then I am referring to that person. You want me to point out groups who I see doing these things? Then I really would have a case of the "theys"

@DapperDave

You answered my previous question, you don't seem to have answered my follow up.

Jargon said:

@DapperDave

You answered my previous question, you don't seem to have answered my follow up.

I'm not going to define an individual or group and say that they do these things. Then I would have a case of the "theys". I'm going to define what exactly I don't like and individuals can decide for themselves whether they are that.

DapperDave said:

You're generalized, you become part of Zero's "they".

Where did you get this impression from? The only "they" I mentioned is Gamergate, not people critical of Anita or Zoe. And I never called all of them sexist misogynists, I said they don't get invited to the ethics discussion table for a whole variety of reasons, the main ones being that they have not put together any kind of real world ideas on ethics that are worth discussing, and they support a movement that basically exists to do very unethical things like make hit sites like Deep Freeze.

The movement as a whole certainly has some issues with sexism though. That's tough to deny.

Zero said:

DapperDave said:

You're generalized, you become part of Zero's "they".

Where did you get this impression from? .

The impression that you generalize?

@DapperDave

Show me where Zero did something different from what you are doing now, i.e. criticizing general behavior.

Jargon said:

@DapperDave

Show me where Zero did something different from what you are doing now, i.e. criticizing general behavior.

I'm criticizing behavior. Zero is generalizing a group. You want me to show you him doing this? I only need to go back to his last post.

I said they don't get invited to the ethics discussion table for a whole variety of reasons, the main ones being that they have not put together any kind of real world ideas on ethics that are worth discussing, and they support a movement that basically exists to do very unethical things like make hit sites like Deep Freeze.

The movement as a whole certainly has some issues with sexism though. That's tough to deny.

To be clear I don't think generalizations are always bad all the time. Noticing patterns is useful. But if you become too stubborn in your generalizations you start to only see those patterns and dismiss anything that falls outside of the generalizations.

@Jargon

I certainly have empathy and understanding for her. I've been on the end of death threats, and it sucks like you wouldn't believe. However I am human, as you've said we all are. When people invite this sort of attention by perpetuating it, intentionally, my empathy lessens. I leave them to what they've chosen and continue to choose. My father drank and smoked himself to death. That was his choice. Doesn't mean I didn't care about him. It was his choice. Anita has, numerous times, fed the trolls, which has consequences. The consequences are not hard to understand. If you feed them, they will continue. If you give them attention, they will keep doing what got them the attention. And if that is the case, you are inviting more of the same, and perpetuating the cycle. You can fight for a cause AND not feed trolls, but she has chosen not to take that path. Does that mean I don't understand why she made that choice? Of course I understand why. She feels the need to defend herself. It's human nature to do that. You want other people to love you. You let your self-esteem be based on what other people say. However it is not the only way, and it is most absolutely definitely not the best way. Mother Teresa got a tremendous amount done in this world, and she did it without feeding the trolls that followed in her wake, and they were many. That is merely one example. All around are people who choose the better path, and that should be the goal. It does less damage, it gets more done, and it doesn't feed trolls perpetuating a cycle of hate that will never end until someone stops perpetuating it. I will always have empathy for people, and when they decide to do things that hurt themselves and others, especially for the sake of their own ego and self esteem, I have no choice but to let them choose their path and be sad about their decision.

I will add this as well. My life has become so much better I can hardly describe it in words since abandoning defending myself. My actions will show what I believe and who I am. Lies cannot stand up in the face of truth. Truth does not need me to defend it. I need not defend myself. No one does. I know I am loved. They are as well. I know I am a hypocrite, and a monster. I know I want to do better and fail. Say the worst thing you can about me and it will be only scratching the surface. I do not need people's empathy and I certainly do not need to defend myself verbally. And because of that, life is good. Yet it gets worse every time I feed a troll or try to stand up for myself. I am no one, let me defend others instead. Let Anita defend others instead of literally feeding trolls. Watch how quickly the situation improves. And likewise watch how it worsens every single time anyone feeds a troll. Every time. Can you imagine if the President of the United States had an online account dedicated to posting the daily threats and harassment and terrible things people say about him, feeding those trolls? Can you imagine the harm that would do?

I will repeat, again, because it is the summary of my post: You can fight for a cause AND not feed trolls. If you choose to do both, you (no one else) invite the trolls to live in your presence. The trolls are monsters, like me.

Jargon said:

there's plenty of material in this conversation that I could credibly point to as an attack on me and you don't seem very concerned about that.

I would advise them in the same way as I just did you, which is actually advice Gui gave me years ago about the way I posted: If what you say can be easily construed as an attack, it's not helpful to what you are trying to say. I am very grateful to Gui for pointing that out to me then, and I am only sorry I didn't listen at the time. He was very correct.